Skip to main content
Glama

Expression Atlas

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Scan Competitor AI Presence

scan_competitor_ai_presence
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side. Probes each entity (your brand + N competitors) with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces which is most/least recognized. Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits: "does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?". Returns ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelsNoWhich models to probe. Supported: "workers-ai" (free default), "anthropic" (requires _apiKey). Omit for just workers-ai.
_apiKeyNoOptional Anthropic API key — only if "anthropic" is in models. Passed to api.anthropic.com per probe.
contextNoOptional shared context applied to every probe (e.g. "B2B SaaS", "Boston restaurant"). Disambiguates common names.
entitiesYesArray of 2-8 entities to compare (brand/business/product names). First entry treated as the "subject" for narrative; rest are competitors.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the internal probing mechanism, ranking, and output fields (score, confidence, signal density). No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences plus one for output, all front-loaded and directly relevant. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description specifies the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Input parameters are fully described. The tool's behavior is clear, and all necessary context for a multi-entity comparison tool is provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. It reemphasizes the purpose of the 'entities' parameter (first entry as subject) and references models and context, but does not provide new factual details beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities, distinguishes from the sibling ai_visibility_check by explicitly mentioning it probes each entity with that tool and ranks results. The verb 'compare' and resource 'AI visibility' are specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like compare_entities. The usage context is well-defined but lacks exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Expression Atlas toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple Polymarket tools, multiple company information tools), but descriptions help distinguish them. However, the variety of domains (brand monitoring, betting, package scanning, memory, etc.) can confuse an agent.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names have no consistent naming pattern: some are verb_noun (validate_claim), some are noun_verb (bet_research), some are compound (ai_visibility_check), and some are single word (forget). This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

28 tools is high, and the set spans many unrelated domains (brand visibility, SEC/FDA data, Polymarket, npm packages, memory, etc.) while the server is named 'Expression Atlas' with only 2 tools related to that purpose. The tool count feels excessive and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

For a server named 'Expression Atlas', only two tools (get_experiment, search_experiments) cover the domain. There are no tools for submitting, updating, or deleting experiments, nor any for data visualization. The surface is severely incomplete.

Resources